[Xmca-l] Re: The Inimitability of Grammar
Joseph Gilbert
joeg4us@roadrunner.com
Fri Apr 4 10:19:11 PDT 2014
Martin,
Right, I remember that.
Huw,
Thanks for the consideration.
Joseph
On Apr 4, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's all from me, Joseph. If my surmising is correct, you have my
> sympathies.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>
> On 4 April 2014 17:07, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Huw,
>> I have presented plenty to think about. I have gotten no responsive reply.
>> My "interest" is not a belief; it is an observation, a discovery, as plain
>> as day to me. I discovered it BY inquiring. Once something is found, one no
>> longer searches for it. Regarding logic; i would like to receive some
>> logical responses to what I say. So far, I have not. Why is that? What is
>> your logical response? This brings to mind a situation that happened when I
>> was in middle school. During volley-ball I developed a serve that none
>> could/would return. I did not develop it for that purpose, it just turned
>> out that way. I would hit the ball from below and it would soar high over
>> the court and then gracefully descend right in the middle of the other
>> side. It was not a fast-ball. I guess it was the unusualness of it that
>> befuddled the players. They just didm.t seem to be able to "get" it.
>> Please check out some of my writings which can be accessed by
>> searching for "Joseph Gilbert sound symbolism". Once I saw and understood
>> the landscape of vocal/verbal communication, there was no need for more
>> research. I saw how the vibratory state of the speaker is transferred to
>> the hearer along with the emotional feeling associated with that state.
>> That was a major revelation. Look at phonograph records: The shape of the
>> ripples within the grooves correlates to specific sounds and the specific
>> sounds correlate to universal emotional reactions. So, there is a
>> correlation between the shape of what is read by a stylus, sound waves
>> imparted into the air and the experience of certain emotional states by a
>> listener. That shape can be utilized as a storage medium for sound sheds
>> light on human vocal communication.
>> Rather than presenting me with suggestions of unnecessary and
>> irrelevant roadblocks why not try to understand what I have already shown?
>> Did you understand it? Did it make sense? Did it not make sense? If not,
>> why not? Why do youall not present me with any rational/logical come-back?
>> Is it that you do not want to embarrass me with your "learned"
>> perspectives? Is it that you have no time for "meaningless chatter"? Or is
>> it that you are unwilling to consider something simply and perhaps take a
>> controversial stand? It seems this is still the Wild West and you are like
>> the sheriff who seeks to maintain the status quo. "There'll be none of
>> those new-fangled ideas around hear, not as long as I'm in charge".
>> Research can be a distraction from the obvious. An experiment was
>> done with monkeys to determine whether babies prefer a bare wire "mother"
>> or a soft and cuddly "mother". Research can be done forever without ever
>> necessitating one to take a stand. And research is never conclusive. There
>> is always more that can be done. Let us discuss without prejudice, what is
>> already evident. If one is truly hungry for understanding, one will not
>> insist on unnecessary research, but will actually apply what is available
>> now. The more I see of the establishment, the sadder does the picture
>> become. There is not one sector of society that does not exhibit the theme
>> of the whole. Like fractals.
>> I identified with my quest and not with some hierarchy of
>> established authority. What makes sense, makes sense. I would like to be
>> received on that basis rather than with some non-responsive put-down. "Go
>> off and do more research", is not responsive. The problem seems to be a
>> genuine lack of interest and a hostility to controversy. Astonishing! Who
>> would have guessed? I used to hold high esteem for professorial folk. That
>> was an ideal, my ideal, and evidently not representative of what is really
>> happening. How could I have been so naive?!
>> Can't you say some thing in response to what I have presented you
>> with regarding my original reason for contributing my work to this forum?
>> That the sounds of our voice communicate meaning is not obscure or hidden.
>> It is obvious to everyone except, it seems to some who understand its
>> implications and shy away from that conclusion.
>>
>> Joseph C. Gilbert
>>
>> On Apr 4, 2014, at 7:25 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph,
>>>
>>>> From scanning your occasionally posts over the last six years, as far
>> as I
>>> can see the principal problem you are having stems from holding your
>>> interest as a belief rather than an object of inquiry. You are not
>>> admitting for any thorough logic in your interest, which is why are you
>> are
>>> continually faced with "academic" rejection.
>>>
>>> Have you, for example, studied some of the bio-mechanics of the ear, such
>>> as how movements in the air matter become translated into nerve pulses?
>>> Have you studied how word utterances influence the nervous structure of
>>> behaviour? Have you studied the social processes in the establishment of
>>> norms and how these influence meaning of sounds?
>>>
>>> If you undertake such disciplined study and demonstrate the logic of your
>>> interest, then I would predict you'll get more favourable responses --
>> from
>>> the scientific perspective, you'd start to be useful and relevant.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Huw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4 April 2014 02:55, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear David,
>>>> I was not expecting you to agree with me, but rather hoping that you'll
>>>> would grasp what I was explaining and respond in some relevant fashion.
>> It
>>>> seems either you do not understand or do not want to understand my
>>>> offering. I admit, I am disappointed and frustrated with this long-time
>>>> situation. For me, it is not about blaming or, heaven forbid, insulting
>>>> anyone, it's simply about attempting to share a discovery. I assumed,
>> long
>>>> ago, that those in the academic world would be the most likely to
>>>> understand what I had found. But it eventually became evident to me that
>>>> the very ones who, I had assumed it would be the most fruitful to share
>> my
>>>> work with, are the most resistant to new ideas that relate to their
>> turf. I
>>>> have yet to receive a cogent or even minimally relevant response from
>> any
>>>> person in the world of academia, except for one Margaret Magnus. She was
>>>> denied consideration of her doctorate thesis by Chomsky's linguistics
>>>> department at MIT. She persisted and received her doctor of philosophy
>>>> degree from Trondheim University. It seems that because her findings ran
>>>> counter to the doctrine of many current linguists (that there is no
>>>> relationship between the sounds of words and their meanings), that even
>>>> though her method of proof of her assertion was scientifically sound,
>> the
>>>> established order would not even consider her work on its merit. She is
>> the
>>>> only one of those in academia who responded intelligently to what I
>> shared
>>>> with her. She posted my writings on her website, "Magical Letter Page"
>> and
>>>> also put it on the web so that when one searches for "Joseph Gilbert
>> sound
>>>> symbolism" my writing comes up.
>>>> I was saying that, after seeing many examples of academic
>> writings
>>>> on the subject of phonosemiotics, I have found almost none that make any
>>>> sense and/or offer any solid assertions. It is obvious to me that the
>>>> sounds we make with our voices express what's going on with us. The
>> ability
>>>> to vocalize evolved because the ability to communicate was an advantage.
>>>> So, what was being communicated by vocal utterances? Whatever it was
>> still
>>>> persists in all spoken-word languages. Ultimately, after all our
>> thinking,
>>>> we are left with the sounds of our words and with the persistent
>>>> uncertainty of the final meaning of any of the many things we may talk
>>>> about. We can gain an abstract understanding, with words, of how things
>>>> work, but with all our reasoning we still cannot come to any conclusion
>> as
>>>> to what any of it means to us. It is the sounds themselves of our words,
>>>> that serve to inform us of how we are affected by that which makes up
>> our
>>>> world. Although this informing takes place subliminally, it is all we
>> have
>>>> to go on in our quest for a sense of meaning. That is the magic of
>>>> language: How we spell/pronounce our words is what creates the spell of
>> the
>>>> our language. This is very primal and quite simple, but has far-reaching
>>>> ramifications. The spoken word is the driver of human affairs.
>>>> I come from a partly Jewish background and have much appreciation
>>>> for who the Jewish people are and the role they play in earthly affairs.
>>>> It's all about asking the relevant questions and not taking any
>>>> wooden nickels.
>>>>
>>>> Joseph C. Gilbert
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 3, 2014, at 3:08 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, of course, I sent out the results of the experiment without any
>>>>> explanation because I believe that people should think for themselves.
>>>>> But Mike is right--I am mildly insulted when I receive exhortations to
>>>>> be relevant, be useful, and think for myself by agreeing with the
>>>>> person insulting me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps I shouldn't be. The truth is that I have been thinking for
>>>>> myself for so long that I actually bore myself while still managing to
>>>>> baffle the reviewers of prominent journals. And it is true that
>>>>> sometimes--yea, often--I would rather think the way that Vygotsky did,
>>>>> particularly since the way he thought seems more useful and relevant
>>>>> to my work than the way that I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would also like to think the way that Hannah Arendt did. One of the
>>>>> interesting remarks she makes in support of the Kantian idea that evil
>>>>> is always superficial and only moral good is genuinely profound is
>>>>> that Eichman had not mastered the grammar of the German language, and
>>>>> he speaks it rather the way that Arendt herself speaks English, even
>>>>> though Eichmann is a native speaker of German. What Arendt means that
>>>>> rather than consciously and deliberately master the intricate system
>>>>> of German articles and case endings and genders, Eichmann takes a
>>>>> shortcut--he simply memorizes phrases and uses them whole, the way we
>>>>> do when we are speaking or trying to write a very complex foreign
>>>>> language (in my case, Russian).
>>>>>
>>>>> At first I thought this was merely the hauteur of a very educated
>>>>> German Jew, the star pupil of Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers,
>>>>> confronted with an unsuccessful peripatetic oil salesman who failed to
>>>>> complete a high school education and used the extermination of the
>>>>> Jews as a way of advancing a lackluster career. But Margaret Von
>>>>> Trotta, who in the course of making the film "Hanna Arendt" also
>>>>> subjected herself to thousands of hours of Eichmann testimony, makes
>>>>> exactly the same remark. As a consequence of a lack of conscious
>>>>> awareness of the way the German language works and a reliance on
>>>>> memorized phrases, Eichmann's language is necessarily thoughtless and
>>>>> cliche ridden.
>>>>>
>>>>> Von Trotta's example is this. The judge asks Eichmann if the "Final
>>>>> Solution" would have unrolled differently had their been "civic
>>>>> responsibility", the judge is very clearly interested in whether
>>>>> people like Eichmann, who essentially bear no ill will whatsoever
>>>>> towards Jews and are simply doing a job that is somewhat more
>>>>> lucrative and promising than selling oil, would want to change their
>>>>> job if they were confronted with the kind of civic resistance that the
>>>>> "Final Solution" encountered in, say, Denmark or Serbia or Bulgaria
>>>>> (where local populations actively resisted the attempt to round up
>>>>> Jews).
>>>>>
>>>>> Eichmann makes no attempt to understand the question. He simply says
>>>>> had it benefited from sufficient hierarchical organization, it would
>>>>> undoubtedly have been more efficient and more efficiacious. But of
>>>>> course the result is nonsense, because in this case "X" is precisely a
>>>>> form of resistance to hierarchical organization. Eichmann does not
>>>>> speak German; instead, German speaks him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bateson remarks that the reason why keeping a room tidy requires work,
>>>>> but it just gets untidy by itself is simple entropy; there are many
>>>>> more ways of being untidy than there are of being tidy (and when he
>>>>> says this, what he is really showing us--almost perfectly--is the big
>>>>> difference between the way we mediate reality and the way reality,
>>>>> objectively, really is). In the same way, being grammatical requires
>>>>> work, because there are infinitely many ways of being ungrammatical
>>>>> and relatively fewer ways of being grammatical. We can, of course,
>>>>> save work by replacing one psychological function (grammaticality)
>>>>> with another (memory), but when we do this run up against Arendt's
>>>>> biggest problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Arendt is shocked that Eichmann uses Kant to justify his actions and
>>>>> even gives a reasonably good, though no doubt memorized, version of
>>>>> the Categorical Imperative. She concludes that there are simply very
>>>>> many ways of being evil, and relatively few of being good. The only
>>>>> reliable method of telling the difference is to think and speak for
>>>>> yourself. Paradoxically, or perhaps not so, this is something we do
>>>>> not do well unless we actually listen to others and respond to them in
>>>>> sentences that cannot be readily Googled.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> simply want to advance their career, So the I want people to think
>>>>> for themselves. B
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4 April 2014 01:35, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I believe David is commenting on Joseph's exhortation that we spend
>> our
>>>>>> time more usefully, Michael.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hangin' out in southern california.
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Michael <mlevykh@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But what exactly does your "little experiment" mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr. Michael G. Levykh, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therapist, Affective Speech Remediation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Psycho-Educational Consultant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Voice Teacher, Vocal Coach
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://www.autisticvancouver.com/> www.autisticvancouver.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 604.322.1019
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sharpening the Ear for Better Communication
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and Socially Appropriate Behaviour
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
>>>>>>> Sent: April-02-14 11:48 PM
>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic interactionism
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just tried a little experiment. I googled "Think for yourself!" "Be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> relevant!" and "Be useful!" to see how many times someone has had,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> more or less, these exact sentiments in these exact words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's what I found:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Be useful!" 4,030,020 matches in .32 seconds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Be relevant!" 607,000,000 in 0.26 seconds. (Much easier to find.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Think for yourself!" 717 million mentions in only .040 seconds!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3 April 2014 11:24, Lois Holzman <lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joseph
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to know more about you. I appreciate your comment on the
>>>> current
>>>>>>> "conversational thread."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lois
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Director, East Side Institute for Group & Short Term Psychotherapy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 104-106 South Oxford Street
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brooklyn, New York 11217
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chair, Global Outreach, All Stars Project, UX
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tel. +1.212.941.8906 x324
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fax +1.718.797.3966
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lholzman@eastsideinstitute.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Social Media
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Blogs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Psychology Today| Psychology of Becoming | ESI Community News
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Websites
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lois Holzman | East Side Institute | Performing the World
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All Stars Project
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Joseph Gilbert <joeg4us@roadrunner.com
>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> May I suggest that you-all emphasize your own questioning and
>>>> thinking
>>>>>>> rather than mainly referring to great innovators and thinkers of the
>>>> past.
>>>>>>> By concentrating on what has already been said by recognized
>>>> authorities,
>>>>>>> one stays mired in the past. It is natural for intelligent, conscious
>>>>>>> beings
>>>>>>> to have their own wonderings/questions. What are yours? Do you wish
>> to
>>>>>>> remake the world in any way? Would you like to have a peaceful planet
>>>> for
>>>>>>> your grandchildren? What needs to be done in order to achieve that?
>> How
>>>>>>> about a new perception, an updated world-view, based upon our best
>>>> current
>>>>>>> knowledge of human nature? Just as many Christians look backward to
>>>> Jesus
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> chart their course, academicians in this current corporate state tend
>>>> to
>>>>>>> remain stuck in the already accepted arguments and premises
>> established
>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>> ago. Please break free and really accomplish something useful with
>> your
>>>>>>> wealth of knowledge rather than mostly engaging in "small talk" among
>>>> your
>>>>>>> cohorts in an isolated i
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> vory tower. We (humanity) need all the help we can get. It seems you
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> be able to do more than split hairs among yourselves while the real
>>>> needs
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the world go unaddressed. Get back to the basics and build from
>> there,
>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>> what you really believe to be true as your navigational instruments.
>>>> Think
>>>>>>> for yourselves! Be original! Be relevant! Be useful!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Joseph Gilbert
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2014, at 8:27 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seems like you nailed it, Robert, (and Benjamin read it there?).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The lesson I take away from this is that we are all "so-called
>>>>>>> thinkers"
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> virtue of the fact that our consciousness is mediated through
>>>> culture.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> imagined present never precisely matches the encountered future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In so far as there is an antidote to this characteristic of
>> humans,
>>>> so
>>>>>>> far
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as I can figure out, it is develop cultural practices that might
>> be
>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "critical" in that they diverge from the common imaginary worlds.
>>>>>>> Having
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> criticized, the preferred next step would be to test out your
>>>> imagined
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> world in practice in order to discover its flaws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do others conclude?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Robert Lake
>>>>>>> <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See highlighted phrase below :-).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Marx-Engels Correspondence 1893
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Engels to Franz Mehring Abstract
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Source: *Marx and Engels Correspondence*;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Publisher: International Publishers (1968);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First Published: *Gestamtausgabe*;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Translated: Donna Torr;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Transcribed: Sally
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ryan<
>>>> http://www.marxists.org/admin/volunteers/biographies/sryan.htm
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2000;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HTML Markup: Sally Ryan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> London, July 14, 1893
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Today is my first opportunity to thank you for the *Lessing
>> Legend*
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> were kind enough to send me. I did not want to reply with a bare
>>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledgment of receipt of the book but intended at the same
>>>> time to
>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> you something about it, about its contents. Hence the delay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I shall begin at the end -- the appendix on historical
>>>> materialism, in
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> you have described the main things excellently and for any
>>>>>>> unprejudiced
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> person convincingly. If I find anything to object to it is that
>> you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> attribute more credit to me than I deserve, even if I count in
>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> which I might possibly have found out for myself - in time - but
>>>> which
>>>>>>> Marx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> with his more rapid *coup d'oeil* (grasp) and wider vision
>>>> discovered
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> more quickly. When one has the good fortune to work for forty
>> years
>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> man like Marx, one does not usually get the recognition one
>> thinks
>>>> one
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> deserves during his lifetime. Then if the greater man dies, the
>>>> lesser
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> easily gets overrated, and this seems to me to be just my case at
>>>>>>> present;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> history will set all this right in the end and by that time one
>>>> will
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> safely round the corner and know nothing more about anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise there is only one other point lacking, which, however,
>>>> Marx
>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> always failed to stress enough in our writings and in regard to
>>>> which
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> are all equally guilty. That is to say, we all laid, and *were
>>>> bound
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> lay*,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the main emphasis, in the first place, on the *derivation* of
>>>>>>> political,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> juridical and other ideological notions, and of actions arising
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> medium of these notions, from basic economic facts. But in so
>>>> doing we
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> neglected the formal side -- the ways and means by which these
>>>>>>> notions,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> etc., come about -- for the sake of the content. This has given
>> our
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> adversaries a welcome opportunity for misunderstandings, of which
>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Barth is a striking example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker
>>>>>>> consciously,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> indeed, but with a false consciousness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Martin John Packer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia attributes the phase to Engels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 1, 2014, at 8:13 PM, Douglas Williams <djwdoc@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi--
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The term false consciousness is from Walter Benjamin in a 1930
>>>>>>> review
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Siegfried Kracauer's Die Angestellten, drawing from Marx. The
>>>> idea in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Marx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> is described in terms of alienation and estrangement from real
>>>>>>> objects
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> activity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
>> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 5:14 PM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: vygotsky's theory and symbolic
>>>> interactionism
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom, so far as I know, the term "false consciousness" was
>>>> invented
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feminists in the 1970s and was never used by Marx, and I don't
>>>> think
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept is consistent with his ideas, as expressed in the
>> Theses
>>>> on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feuerbach which you quoted, for example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Richardson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... In the first place, it should be noted that Marx, like
>>>> Spinoza
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Freud, believed that most of what men consciously think is
>>>> "false"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consciousness, is ideology and rationalization; that the true
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> mainsprings
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of man's actions are unconscious to him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list